Headlines

Robert Costa

Luis Fortuño: Puerto Rico’s Scott Walker

“After I suspended collective bargaining for two years and froze all salary increases, we had some pushback,” Fortuño says. “Some people called me a fascist. That’s mostly over, but there will be more attacks from the unions.”

The country’s biggest public-sector unions, such as AFSCME and SEIU, are investing in Fortuño’s defeat, organizing rallies and fundraising drives. Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO president, has called Fortuño “anti-worker.”…

But Fortuño didn’t stop with budget cuts. His energy policy has ignited a debate about the future of the Puerto Rican economy, which relies heavily on imported oil. Environmentalists can’t stand the proposed $450 million natural-gas pipeline.

Fortuño knows that the project will be opposed by liberals every step of the way. But focusing on the protests, he says, misses the point. According to the New York Times, “Puerto Ricans pay almost three times the national average for electricity.”

It’s a complicated situation in PR and it has been for quite a while. It’s almost a microcosm of American Union-Management relations historically. On the one hand you have the US coming in during the Spanish-American War, beating up on the Spanish but not treating the PR populace very well. Lots of bad feelings that still linger even today. On the other hand you had Luis Mu~oz-Marin providing people with a vision for the future that was FDR-like for its time.

As you can imagine, the baggage that ensued involved PR becoming… say it with me… a frigging welfare state. Fortu~o seems to be the right man for a tough job but I fear he won’t last. Puerto Ricans aren’t into the hard medicine it takes to create a stable economy and I say that from firsthand conversations with my mostly Partido Popular family (yeah, I’m a black sheep).

I hope he makes it even though my 91 year-old father can’t stand him. Politics.

He would make almost the perfect VP, except he’s running for re-election as governor, so he can’t do both at once.

Nessuno on June 25, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I think he’s needed more as a candidate for National Office.

His only road to being a presidential contender is getting the Republican Party’s Vice-Presidential nomination first. And there are many benefits to having this guy on the Republican Primary Presidential debate stage in either 2016 or 2020.

What stops him now? The fact that he’s not from one of the fifty states? When has that ever really mattered?

KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Yes. The novelty effect of being Puerto Rican.

Also, another sad fact of life: the MSM would have a field day with the “the Republican ticket loves to fire people” meme. Fortuño did what he had to do to save Puerto Rico: and that implied taking many unpopular measures, like discharging public sector workers. He didn’t have the luxury of diminishing the government workforce by attrition.

Now that’s just silly. They might try something like that with somebody like Sandoval or Martinez, both Hispanic but fresh to statewide office, but Fortuño has been governor for four years and a member of Congress before that. I don’t see it sticking. And if that’s the overriding concern, we may as well never elevate a nonwhite to high national office, for fear of charges of “novelty.”

Also, another sad fact of life: the MSM would have a field day with the “the Republican ticket loves to fire people” meme. Fortuño did what he had to do to save Puerto Rico: and that implied taking many unpopular measures, like discharging public sector workers. He didn’t have the luxury of diminishing the government workforce by attrition.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Public sector workers are (1) not overwhelmingly popular in this country and (2) Democrat base voters to begin with. Tell me what we lose here.

Now that’s just silly. They might try something like that with somebody like Sandoval or Martinez, both Hispanic but fresh to statewide office, but Fortuño has been governor for four years and a member of Congress before that. I don’t see it sticking. And if that’s the overriding concern, we may as well never elevate a nonwhite to high national office, for fear of charges of “novelty.”

First, the novelty isn’t about him being Hispanic. It’s about Puerto Rico not being a state. You’d lose 2 weeks talking about Puerto Rico status and answering to questions like “Governor, if Puerto Rico votes for independence in the plebiscite you proposed, will you stop being an American citizen? Would your resign from the VP office?”.

Second, you must be new here if you think that part of the base wouldn’t be shocked with a VP from a territory and not a state.

Public sector workers are (1) not overwhelmingly popular in this country and (2) Democrat base voters to begin with. Tell me what we lose here.

KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Firing people, especially poor people, is even less popular. Fortuño has conducted Puerto Rico through a hardcore austerity program. Necessary, but not even remotely popular. And some people come out of it as losers.

Whatever your issue is with the man, it’s more than you’ve laid out here. This is petty stuff that’s fodder for the news cycle for a day and blogs for two. And the idea that Birthers, of all people, would have any sway over the impact of a VP is just plain ol’ stupid.

A guarantee you that the usual suspects will lap up and question no further any VP candidate who is conservative is designated by their intellectual idols as “the conservative.” Fortuño fits that mold, and actually is conservative.

As for your knock on austerity as an anchor, why don’t you look at the countries that are falling into ruin across the Atlantic with daily warnings of a eurozone collapse filtering through the news here, and re-examine whether austerity will be popular here.

Whatever your issue is with the man, it’s more than you’ve laid out here. This is petty stuff that’s fodder for the news cycle for a day and blogs for two. And the idea that Birthers, of all people, would have any sway over the impact of a VP is just plain ol’ stupid.

A guarantee you that the usual suspects will lap up and question no further any VP candidate who is conservative is designated by their intellectual idols as “the conservative.” Fortuño fits that mold, and actually is conservative.

As for your knock on austerity as an anchor, why don’t you look at the countries that are falling into ruin across the Atlantic with daily warnings of a eurozone collapse filtering through the news here, and re-examine whether austerity will be popular here.

KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM

I’ve been a Fortuño supporter for a long time and, as I’ve said, in an idea world, he’d be the VP nominee. You clearly haven’t been able to comprehend those very simple things if you think I have “a problem with the man”. I have no idea where the reference to the Birthers come from. I don’t consider the Birthers relevant – if so, then Jindal or Rubio shouldn’t be considered either.

You’re confusing your wishes with reality. Austerity will always be popular here – as long as it is an abstract concept. Just like, say, “entitlement reform” and “balanced budget”. Those things poll pretty well. Concrete measures like, say, lowering benefits and increasing the retirement age, is a completely different issue.

Since Fortuño became Puerto Rico’s governor, the economy contracted every single year. The GDP went down 2.1% in 2010 and 4% in 2011. The unemployment rate is now at 15% – higher than any state. It was at 10% when Fortuño was elected.

If you believe that you can counteract the kind of simplistic narrative these data points allow by saying “yeah, but it was necessary”, you clearly underrate how stupid voters can be.

You’re confusing your wishes with reality. Austerity will always be popular here – as long as it is an abstract concept. Just like, say, “entitlement reform” and “balanced budget”. Those things poll pretty well. Concrete measures like, say, lowering benefits and increasing the retirement age, is a completely different issue.

Since Fortuño became Puerto Rico’s governor, the economy contracted every single year. The GDP went down 2.1% in 2010 and 4% in 2011. The unemployment rate is now at 15% – higher than any state. It was at 10% when Fortuño was elected.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I’m not overwriting reality with my wishes. Not at all. But campaign bluster and actual action are two very, very different things, and it’s going to fall to the GOP to make these policy changes that the Democrats won’t. Simple as that.

I never once implied that selling an austerity message would be easy. But it has to be done, and better it be done by someone who can and has put it into action than by someone who has no evidence of having done so. We don’t get the option of doing nothing over the next four years, no matter how that might play among the uninformed.

As for the economy and unemployment, the figures you cite are good attack fodder but completely spurious. National unemployment has tracked pretty closely with Puerto Rico’s, strictly in terms of percentage increase and decrease, and his staff cuts haven’t been in place long enough to do long-term damage. When Obama got elected, unemployment was about 6%, and is now above 8%.

I’m not overwriting reality with my wishes. Not at all. But campaign bluster and actual action are two very, very different things, and it’s going to fall to the GOP to make these policy changes that the Democrats won’t. Simple as that.

I never once implied that selling an austerity message would be easy. But it has to be done, and better it be done by someone who can and has put it into action than by someone who has no evidence of having done so. We don’t get the option of doing nothing over the next four years, no matter how that might play among the uninformed.

We need to make a push to move the public opinion and the Overton Window on entitlement reform and the fiscal gap. A presidential campaign isn’t the terrain to have that fight. At the very least it’d be counter-productive.

As for the economy and unemployment, the figures you cite are good attack fodder but completely spurious. National unemployment has tracked pretty closely with Puerto Rico’s, strictly in terms of percentage increase and decrease, and his staff cuts haven’t been in place long enough to do long-term damage. When Obama got elected, unemployment was about 6%, and is now above 8%.

KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 8:22 PM

That’s just too nuanced to sell voters. Obama will tell them that the unemployment rate was 7.8% when he became President and it’s now at 8.xish% while with Fortuño it jumped from 10% to 15%. It’ll just fit his “it could be worse with Republicans” and “see what the Republican austerity policies do” narrative.

We need to make a push to move the public opinion and the Overton Window on entitlement reform and the fiscal gap. A presidential campaign isn’t the terrain to have that fight. At the very least it’d be counter-productive.

Well and good, but as Walker quite clearly showed us, you’ll never get the cover and imprimatur from the voters that you need unless you run on the specific policies. Piecewise is fine, but how many more opportunities do we get to kick this down the road before SS and Medicare go bust and whichever party in power (as well as our country’s fiscal standing, which is far more important than any transitory power-shift) gets nuked? The answer is always going to be “not as many as you think.”

That’s just too nuanced to sell voters. Obama will tell them that the unemployment rate was 7.8% when he became President and it’s now at 8.xish% while with Fortuño it jumped from 10% to 15%. It’ll just fit his “it could be worse with Republicans” and “see what the Republican austerity policies do” narrative.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Any campaign worth its salt has the tonnage to fight toe-to-toe with Obama on economic matters. And the Romney campaign clears that bar. The fact that Obama wants the election to be anything but about the economy is proven by the myriad smokescreens he’s projecting. They’ll hit him with PR’s economy, sure, and then Romney will bury Obama’s team with national numbers. It’s not a critical weakness.

Well and good, but as Walker quite clearly showed us, you’ll never get the cover and imprimatur from the voters that you need unless you run on the specific policies. Piecewise is fine, but how many more opportunities do we get to kick this down the road before SS and Medicare go bust and whichever party in power (as well as our country’s fiscal standing, which is far more important than any transitory power-shift) gets nuked? The answer is always going to be “not as many as you think.”

Walker didn’t run on anything comparable.

Walker run on pledging to oppose right-to-work laws.

Walker is actually one of the most pro-union, moderate, Republican governors in the entire country. He basically shares FDR’s views on unions.

Again, what maximizes the chances of reform is winning the election in November. Throwing away the election to advocate for reform is self-defeating and counter-productive.

Any campaign worth its salt has the tonnage to fight toe-to-toe with Obama on economic matters. And the Romney campaign clears that bar. The fact that Obama wants the election to be anything but about the economy is proven by the myriad smokescreens he’s projecting. They’ll hit him with PR’s economy, sure, and then Romney will bury Obama’s team with national numbers. It’s not a critical weakness.

KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Fortuño won’t be the pick and considering the easy fodder he’d provide for Obama’s campaign, that’s a very wise decision from Romney’s campaign.

Again, what maximizes the chances of reform is winning the election in November. Throwing away the election to advocate for reform is self-defeating and counter-productive.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Fine, I guess we’re not coming to accord. I still think that the absolute worst thing we could possibly do is secure power and either do nothing or implement weak piecemeal measures regarding fiscal health. It’s signing our own death warrant. If our country crashes while Republicans run the show, it’s 1929 all over again and the Dems get carte blanche to finish the job FDR started.

. I still think that the absolute worst thing we could possibly do is secure power and either do nothing or implement weak piecemeal measures regarding fiscal health.
KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I agree with that. I think it’s vital the GOP does something. Ultimately that’s what matters: politics for the sake of politics is useless. In the end, politics is just a mean to implement policy.

I just don’t want to campaign on it. FWIW, most politicians who end up implementing substantial and meaningful budgetary and entitlement reform generally don’t campaign explicitly on the measures they’ll eventually implement – Walker and Fortuño included.

That’s just not going to cut it. The media’s going to be asking too many questions, and they’re going to end up parroting the public-sector union party line while doing so, and it may get to the point that Congress is cowed from any further action to trim the fat.

I’m convinced that the only way to immunize a president from this is to let it out into the open. I believe, for example, that Bush would have had significantly higher chances of success reforming Social Security had he thought to debate it during the election. As it stood, he and the Congress got demolished by the media and Democrats working in tandem, and the public knew nothing except that they hadn’t been consulted first.

I’m convinced that the only way to immunize a president from this is to let it out into the open. I believe, for example, that Bush would have had significantly higher chances of success reforming Social Security had he thought to debate it during the election. As it stood, he and the Congress got demolished by the media and Democrats working in tandem, and the public knew nothing except that they hadn’t been consulted first.

KingGold on June 25, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Why do you think Bush proposals would have been more popular before the election than they were after?